Zooq

profile_full

Read-onlyIdempotent

Complete profile in one call — positions, education, skills, certifications, geo, follower/connection counts and flags. This is the canonical profile read; the other profile/* paths (overview, details, about, education, skills, certifications, full-experience, social-matrix) are named aliases that return this exact same record. (Costs 10 Zooq credits.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No	Stable profile id (prsn_...). Get it from profile_full or /search/people — read data.id. Provide handle OR id.
`handle`	No	Public profile handle. Provide handle OR id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Example value was a string
`geo`	No
`url`	No	Example value was a string
`handle`	No	Example value was a string
`summary`	No	Example value was a string
`headline`	No	Example value was a string
`education`	No	Array in the example
`last_name`	No	Example value was a string
`first_name`	No	Example value was a string
`is_creator`	No	Example value was a boolean
`is_premium`	No	Example value was a boolean
`is_influencer`	No	Example value was a boolean
`follower_count`	No	Example value was a number
`full_positions`	No	Array in the example
`connections_count`	No	Example value was a number

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 10 Zooq credit cost and the fact that aliases return this exact same record, which helps an agent reason about cost and correctness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense, purposeful sentences. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns; the second clarifies the alias relationship and cost. No filler or redundancy, and every clause adds decision-relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers content, alias relationship, and cost, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not needed. It does not explicitly state whether at least one of id/handle is required, though the schema strongly implies it; still, the overall picture is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'id' and 'handle' parameters, including the 'Provide handle OR id' instruction. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Complete profile in one call' — and enumerates the content (positions, education, skills, certifications, geo, counts, flags). It also explicitly differentiates from sibling profile/* paths by stating they are aliases returning the exact same record, which fully disambiguates the tool from its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance by calling this the 'canonical profile read' and explicitly naming the other profile/* paths as aliases that return the same record, telling the agent to prefer this tool over those aliases. It does not, however, discuss when to choose this over non-alias siblings like profile_enrich or profile_employment_history, so the guidance is not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Zooq tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have strongly overlapping purposes: companies_name_lookup is explicitly equivalent to search_companies, companies_enrich/companies_info/companies_universal_name_to_id all return company-profile data, and profile_full overlaps with profile_employment_history and profile_enrich. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would still frequently have to choose between near-duplicate endpoints.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a predictable resource-prefixed snake_case pattern, such as companies_*, jobs_*, posts_*, profile_*, and search_*, which makes the set readable and groupable. Minor inconsistencies like jobs_details_v2, g_title_skills_lookup, and mixed noun suffixes (info/details/full/lookup) keep it from a perfect score.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is well beyond the heavy 25+ band, and several tools appear to be different lookup modes or near-duplicates of the same underlying capability. The broad LinkedIn-style data domain explains much of the size, but the set still feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The API covers the core read-only professional-data workflows well: people, companies, jobs, posts, comments, likes, email discovery/verification, schools, skills, and targeted searches. Minor gaps exist, such as some job filters being unusable and no direct exposure of certain profile alias endpoints, but agents can generally complete end-to-end workflows.

Resources

Need Help?